Same-sex marriage: where does my objection go wrong?

[iloveangels]

In the country, we have something called the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees the equal treatment of people under the law. Currently, in most states, same-sex couples are excluded from the legal union of marriage (civil marriage), and that exclusion lacks a rational basis (the lowest, most deferential level of scrutiny). If marriage laws which exclude same-sex couples from marriage lack a rational basis, then those laws ought to change to include same-sex couples.

So the issue is whether our marriage laws which exclude same-sex couples from marriage lack a rational basis. The onus is on the government, in an equal protection challenge, to articulate the rational basis for the law, and one rationale that has been articulated is the “inability to procreate” justification, which is susceptible to my objection in the op. Can you articulate a “rational basis” for maintaining the status quo? That is the central issue here.

Originally, you appealed to the “ordered towards procreation” rationale, but in light of my two objections to it, you appeared to have abandoned it. Can you articulate different rational basis rationale that isn’t susceptible to my op objection?

Yeah, here we go again, talking only about American law and what kind of certificates we can get out of it.

Tell me, Spencelo, have you ever considered stamp collecting as a hobby?

 

[surritter]

In the country, we have something called the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees the equal treatment of people under the law. Currently, in most states, same-sex couples are excluded from the legal union of marriage (civil marriage), and that exclusion lacks a rational basis (the lowest, most deferential level of scrutiny). If marriage laws which exclude same-sex couples from marriage lack a rational basis, then those laws ought to change to include same-sex couples.

So the issue is whether our marriage laws which exclude same-sex couples from marriage lack a rational basis. The onus is on the government, in an equal protection challenge, to articulate the rational basis for the law, and one rationale that has been articulated is the “inability to procreate” justification, which is susceptible to my objection in the op. Can you articulate a “rational basis” for maintaining the status quo? That is the central issue here.

Originally, you appealed to the “ordered towards procreation” rationale, but in light of my two objections to it, you appeared to have abandoned it. Can you articulate different rational basis rationale that isn’t susceptible to my op objection?

This doesn’t fly, either. You are all over this idea of “equal rights,” but refuse to define what those rights are and why they are granted.
I have indeed articulated a rational basis for traditional marriage. Your refusal to accept it doesn’t make it irrational. (I haven’t “abandoned” the business about being ordered toward procreation. Instead, I’ve detected a more fundamental item missing in your thinking, and am angling toward resolving that.)

So, back to square one: A government doesn’t grant a marriage license simply for reasons of inheritance and rights of survivorship; there are numerous other legal vehicles for doing that. So please tell us WHY governments even grant marriage licenses? WHAT are these rights that seem to be denied?

 

[spencelo]

This doesn’t fly, either. You are all over this idea of “equal rights,” but refuse to define what those rights are and why they are granted.

I thought I was clear: same-sex couples should have the right to marry, just like opposite-sex couples.

I have indeed articulated a rational basis for traditional marriage. Your refusal to accept it doesn’t make it irrational.

I provided two objections to your “ordered towards procreation” rationale, which you have yet to refute.

So, back to square one: A government doesn’t grant a marriage license simply for reasons of inheritance and rights of survivorship; there are numerous other legal vehicles for doing that. So please tell us WHY governments even grant marriage licenses? WHAT are these rights that seem to be denied?

That isn’t square one. Square one is this: opposite-sex couples have the legal right to marry, but why shouldn’t same-sex couples have that same right as well? What’s the rational basis for distinguishing between the two? Your “ordered towards procreation” rationale is susceptible to the two objections I raised against it. Unless you can refute my objections, then my question remains unanswered.

 

[Elizabeth502]

my question remains unanswered.

…that despite 30 days of posting on this forum since you registered as a CAF user, 97% of your postings being on the topic of homosexuality, and 3% on “animal suffering.” Your questions have been meticulously and exhaustively answered, with both secular reasoning and religious argument.

Did you register so that you could persuade Catholics to agree with you? I ask because I would think someone genuinely interested in an answer (or an outsider merely curious) would stop asking the same question over and over, in the same manner, and with the same words.

Your persistence comes across as polemic, i.m.o., rather than intellectually curious.

 

[Stephen168]

Right, and stating that I’m in favor of pedophile couples marrying wasn’t uncouth.

you cannot rationally seperate same sex couples from pedophile couples. You believe same sex couples can marry, so you logically believe pedophile couples can marry.

Why you think they shouldn’t be allowed to marry is still a mystery to me

You have to first define marriage before we can answer the question

 

[spencelo]

you cannot rationally seperate same sex couples from pedophile couples.

Arguing via mere assertion seems to be your typical strategy.

 

[Stephen168]

Your problem seems to be a continued inability to separate civil marriage from religious marriage.

By defining marriage you will then be able to easily explain the deference between civil and religious marriage. Just as explaining what a dog is makes it easy to explain the difference between a big dog and a little dog. What is marriage? Then what is the difference between civil and religious?

 

[Stephen168]

Arguing via mere assertion seems to be your typical strategy.

Can you provide an ancient reasoned definition of marriage which will include opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples but exclude pedophile couples? Remembering of course that laws and taboos can be changed.

 

[spencelo]

Stephen,

You are just repeating the same points without interacting with any of my arguments. Unless you decide to respond substantively to them, I’ll no longer reply to your comments here.

 

[Stephen168]

But there isn’t much overlap in America – civil marriage is very different from religious marriage. People who can’t get married in Churches (because their union won’t be recognized) can nevertheless get married at the county clerk’s office.

Who drives a car doesn’t change the fact it is a car. What is your definition of marriage which can start in a church or a county clerk’s office?

 

[Stephen168]

Right, and “civil marriage” encompasses both Catholics and non-Catholics, so there isn’t much overlap between the two concepts. .

Civil weddings were invented so that various Protestants could marry. Marriage did not change as it can not change. What is your new definition of marriage?

 

[Stephen168]

And that “more” part is personal, varying from couple to couple – many of whom are NOT Catholic. So again, I don’t see much of an overlap between civil marriage and religious marriage.

What is your definition of marriage, so we might see the difference between civil and religious marriage?

 

[surritter]

I thought I was clear: same-sex couples should have the right to marry, just like opposite-sex couples.

Um, it’s not clear.
What is that right GRANTING to them?

I provided two objections to your “ordered towards procreation” rationale, which you have yet to refute.

One objection – if I recall – was that sterile couples can marry but impotent couples cannot. That was dealt with in posts #58 and 74.

The other objection was that it was a Catholic thing to say “ordered toward procreation.” Wrong; it is a biological thing. We all know that a male and female are required to have a baby. Other combinations of genders may engage in sexual behavior, but none of those other combos can ever result in kids. With me so far?
Now somebody decides that a government needs to get involved with a piece of paper that says something about a relationship between people. Said government doesn’t care who has sex with who; it cares about an orderly society. It also cares about its citizenry, and new citizens have to be established in a cell that is stable, in order for the society to be stable.

So what kind of relationship between people might result in new citizens? The homosexual relationship? No – let’s let them go about their business, and it has no effect on the future of our society. Hmmm, but there is this male/female thing where new babies emerge. That is something that a government cares about and wishes to certify and stabilize.
Based on your past posts, I don’t expect you to think about this before firing off a meaningless response, but maybe reading it will get some sort of light bulb to click on.

That isn’t square one. Square one is this: opposite-sex couples have the legal right to marry, but why shouldn’t same-sex couples have that same right as well? What’s the rational basis for distinguishing between the two? Your “ordered towards procreation” rationale is susceptible to the two objections I raised against it. Unless you can refute my objections, then my question remains unanswered.

See above. Now you get to answer my two questions: In your non-traditional definition of marriage, what is the purpose of having that certificate? Why is there a need for a government to certify a love relationship?

 

[surritter]

What is your definition of marriage, so we might see the difference between civil and religious marriage?

Don’t hold your breath, bub.

 

[Stephen168]

I thought I was clear: same-sex couples should have the right to marry, just like opposite-sex couples.

why do you exclude pedophile couples? Is there a logical reason to exclude them?

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen,

You are just repeating the same points without interacting with any of my arguments. Unless you decide to respond substantively to them, I’ll no longer reply to your comments here.

I don’t what you to just reply. I want you to define marriage, so we can discuss it. My point is that your idea of marriage is irrational and you know it. You will not provide it because it will not hold up to reasoned critic.

 

[spencelo]

Um, it’s not clear.
What is that right GRANTING to them?

The right to marry.

One objection – if I recall – was that sterile couples can marry but impotent couples cannot. That was dealt with in posts #58 and 74.

You wrote that impotent couples are not permitted to marry, but they are. Impotence is not a barrier to civil marriage, although it may be a barrier to Catholic marriage.

The other objection was that it was a Catholic thing to say “ordered toward procreation.” Wrong; it is a biological thing. We all know that a male and female are required to have a baby. Other combinations of genders may engage in sexual behavior, but none of those other combos can ever result in kids. With me so far?

No, because your “ordered towards procreation” sounds exactly like “ability to procreate,” which is susceptible to my op objection, but you claim that the two are entirely disconnected: a coupling can be “ordered towards procreation” even though procreation is impossible. So I have no idea what “ordered towards procreation” even means. It would be helpful if you would provide a sufficiently clear and rigorous definition of the term (since what you’re telling me doesn’t square with what other Catholics on here have said.)

So what kind of relationship between people might result in new citizens? The homosexual relationship? No – let’s let them go about their business, and it has no effect on the future of our society. Hmmm, but there is this male/female thing where new babies emerge.

Again, this sounds exactly like the “inability to procreate” rationale, because you’re saying that because same-sex relationships can’t produce “new citizens,” they shouldn’t be allowed to marry. This rationale is susceptible to my op objection. And yet, you’ll say that I’m misrepresenting you, that the “inability to procreate” has nothing to do with why same-sex couples can’t marry. On one hand, you say the rationale for excluding same-sex couples from marrying is (your words) “a biological thing,” but on the other (when you talk about "ordered towards procreation), you say that that biological thing has nothing to do with the ability to procreate. I hope you can see why I’m terribly confused.

Now you get to answer my two questions: In your non-traditional definition of marriage, what is the purpose of having that certificate? Why is there a need for a government to certify a love relationship?

These are the wrong questions. The question is: are same-sex couples being treated equally under the law when they are excluded from civil marriage? A ‘yes’ answer assumes that there is a rational basis for the exclusion, which I have yet to see.

 

[spencelo]

why do you exclude pedophile couples? Is there a logical reason to exclude them?

Yes, there is a logical reason to exclude them, but since you made the claim that allowing SSM logically entails allowing pedophilia marriage, I want to hear either (a) an adequate justification for the claim or (b) a retraction of the claim. I’ll provide my reason if you do either (a) or (b).

 

[Stephen168]

Now you get to answer my two questions: In your non-traditional definition of marriage, what is the purpose of having that certificate? Why is there a need for a government to certify a love relationship?

Your two questions and my one question will never by answered by anyone afraid of their position on this topic. Our questions require real thought and reason. Their refusal just fortifies my belief in the weakness of their argument.

 

[Stephen168]

Yes, there is a logical reason to exclude them, but since you made the claim that allowing SSM logically entails allowing pedophilia marriage, I want to hear either (a) an adequate justification for the claim or (b) a retraction of the claim. I’ll provide my reason if you do either (a) or (b).

Both unions are naturally sterile; sterile by their very natural design.